The proof of equivalence between context-free grammars (CFGs) and non-deterministic pushdown automata (PDAs) is a fundamental concept in computational complexity theory. This proof establishes that any language generated by a CFG can be recognized by a PDA, and vice versa. In this explanation, we will delve into the details of this proof, providing a comprehensive and didactic understanding of the topic.

To begin, let us define the components involved. A CFG is a formalism used to describe context-free languages. It consists of a set of production rules that generate strings by rewriting non-terminal symbols into sequences of terminal and non-terminal symbols. On the other hand, a PDA is a computational model that extends the capabilities of a finite automaton by incorporating a stack. The stack allows the PDA to perform non-deterministic operations, making it more powerful than a finite automaton.

The proof of equivalence between CFGs and PDAs can be divided into two parts: proving that any language generated by a CFG can be recognized by a PDA, and proving that any language recognized by a PDA can be generated by a CFG.

First, let us consider the direction of CFG to PDA. Given a CFG, we need to construct an equivalent PDA that recognizes the same language. This can be done by simulating the derivation process of the CFG using the stack of the PDA. Each non-terminal symbol in the CFG corresponds to a state in the PDA, and each production rule corresponds to a transition in the PDA. By reading the input string and manipulating the stack, the PDA can simulate the derivation process and accept the string if it belongs to the language generated by the CFG.

For example, let's consider the CFG with the following production rules:

S -> aSb | ε

This CFG generates the language of all strings consisting of any number of 'a's followed by the same number of 'b's. To construct an equivalent PDA, we can use two states: one for reading 'a's and pushing them onto the stack, and another for reading 'b's and popping from the stack. The transition from the first state to the second state occurs when an 'a' is encountered, and the transition from the second state to the accepting state occurs when a 'b' is encountered. By following this process, the PDA recognizes the same language as the CFG.

Now, let us consider the direction of PDA to CFG. Given a PDA, we need to construct an equivalent CFG that generates the same language. This can be done using the concept of parse trees. A parse tree represents the derivation process of a string in a CFG. By analyzing the transitions of the PDA and constructing a parse tree, we can determine the production rules of the equivalent CFG.

For example, let's consider a PDA that recognizes the language of all strings consisting of an equal number of 'a's and 'b's. By analyzing the transitions of the PDA, we can construct a parse tree that represents the derivation process of a string. From this parse tree, we can extract the production rules of the equivalent CFG, which would be similar to the following:

S -> aSb | bSa | ε

These production rules generate the same language as the PDA.

The proof of equivalence between CFGs and PDAs establishes that any language generated by a CFG can be recognized by a PDA, and any language recognized by a PDA can be generated by a CFG. This proof involves constructing an equivalent PDA for a given CFG and constructing an equivalent CFG for a given PDA. By simulating the derivation process and analyzing the transitions, we can establish the equivalence between these two formalisms.

#### Other recent questions and answers regarding EITC/IS/CCTF Computational Complexity Theory Fundamentals:

- Is Chomsky’s grammar normal form always decidible?
- Can a regular expression be defined using recursion?
- How to represent OR as FSM?
- Is there a contradiction between the definition of NP as a class of decision problems with polynomial-time verifiers and the fact that problems in the class P also have polynomial-time verifiers?
- Is verifier for class P polynomial?
- Can a Nondeterministic Finite Automaton (NFA) be used to represent the state transitions and actions in a firewall configuration?
- Is using three tapes in a multitape TN equivalent to single tape time t2(square) or t3(cube)? In other words is the time complexity directly related to number of tapes?
- If the value in the fixed point definition is the lim of the repeated application of the function can we call it still a fixed point? In the example shown if instead of 4->4 we have 4->3.9, 3.9->3.99, 3.99->3.999, … is 4 still the fixed point?
- If we have two TMs that describe a decidable language is the equivalence question still undecidable?
- In the case of detecting the start of the tape, can we start by using a new tape T1=$T instead of shifting to the right?

View more questions and answers in EITC/IS/CCTF Computational Complexity Theory Fundamentals